Discrimination | News

Gay Man Sues Boss For Anti-Straight Discrimination


In what is a bit of a reversal from the typical discrimination case, 32-year old Jamie Ardigo claims that his former employer at J. Christopher Capital, J. Christopher Burch, boasted about only hiring gay men because he trusted them more than their straight counterparts. Oh, he also hired hot girls because they are, well, hot.

ABC News elaborates:

[Ardigo says he] was seated in a meeting where Burch announced the fact that he hired only gay men because they were productive, and because he trusted them. Burch said the same thing, Ardigo asserts, on other occasions: "I witnessed it in meetings with the executive management team, where he'd blatantly state the fact that he only likes to hire gay men and beautiful women."

Ardigo found this troubling on two levels, he says: As a gay man, he personally was offended. And as an HR professional "keenly aware" of the need to maintain a non-discriminatory atmosphere in the workplace, he knew that both the attitude expressed and any hiring that bore it out was contrary to federal and New York City law.

"I was highly concerned for the organization and uncomfortable myself working there," he says. "I had never worked for an organization that made decisions based on that or that made comments like that."

Ardigo claims he was fired after complaining about various incidents, including one in which a straight female employee made it know that she had a working vibrator in her purse. Burch, naturally, denies the allegations.

Feed This post's comment feed


  1. I have always wanted to have a business and then fire all of the 'straight' employess, have them sue me and win. That would set legal precedent against workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation which (at least here in Idaho) is still legal.

    Posted by: joosy | May 10, 2012 4:41:19 PM

  2. someone is looking for free money.

    Posted by: truthiness | May 10, 2012 4:42:29 PM

  3. Hey, I had a former lesbian boss who said she liked to hire gay men and white women married to black men because they both were used to abuse.

    Posted by: Gus | May 10, 2012 4:44:52 PM

  4. @Gus, lmao

    Posted by: Emmy | May 10, 2012 4:59:24 PM

  5. Ugly is not a protected class.

    Posted by: barky | May 10, 2012 5:22:45 PM

  6. gus, that's funny

    I found out once that I was hired to a job because they knew I was gay. They apparently were looking for a gay person to take the position. They didn't *only* hire gays, but in this particular situation, I guess they wanted to round out the staff by having a gay guy on board.

    I was always conflicted about it because on the one hand, I thought I deserved to be there and was happy for the opportunity to prove it, but on the other hand it felt so offensive that the rest of me wasn't enough to get hired.

    This was for a job at my college campus as an RA, and I don't think I've ever been hired (or not hired) since due to my sexuality, but it is an interesting point.

    Posted by: gabriel | May 10, 2012 5:23:03 PM

  7. I too had a female boss that liked to hire attractive gay men so that they could fawn over her. Not sure what it means for this lawsuit though. In certain places it pays to be Gay?

    Posted by: sara | May 10, 2012 5:27:10 PM

  8. How about the gay bar that likes to only hire buff straight guys as bartenders because "gay men are bitches." If you live in NYC, you have been to one of these bars.

    Posted by: qj201 | May 10, 2012 5:39:10 PM

  9. I dont see anything wrong with discriminating against straight people. Churches can discriminate against gays and they dont even have to pay taxes. Until sexual orientation discrimination is banned federally, we should only hire gays in our businesses.

    Posted by: Gay Gnostic | May 10, 2012 5:43:57 PM

  10. One big problem with this ABC article:

    "as an HR professional "keenly aware" of the need to maintain a non-discriminatory atmosphere in the workplace, he knew that both the attitude expressed and any hiring that bore it out was contrary to federal and New York City law."

    It may be against the law in NYC and NY state to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, but IT IS NOT AGAINST FEDERAL LAW TO DISCRIMINATE ON THE BASIS OF SEXUAL ORIENTATION.

    It's sloppiness by people that should be knowledgeable that lead the majority of Americans to believe that sexual orientation is covered by the Federal EEO statute... and it makes getting a Federal ENDA law that much harder to get passed.

    Posted by: Mike in Houston | May 10, 2012 6:02:25 PM

  11. That'll teach him to trust gay men!

    Posted by: RandySF | May 10, 2012 6:55:23 PM

  12. Man, I would love-love-love to work for a company that hired only gay men--as long as they were clearly qualified for the jobs. That would be a wonderful environment.

    Posted by: jim | May 10, 2012 8:08:06 PM

  13. He complained because one female co-worker had a working vibrator in her purse, it's not his business what she does on her lunch break.:)

    Posted by: gb | May 10, 2012 8:23:04 PM

  14. I remember a case, or rather two cases, that took place a few years ago. Possibly in Oregon, but the details are hazy. A group of gay men successfully sued their employer for discrimination in hiring and promotion. A few years later, a group of women successfully sued the company because their gay male bosses wouldn't hire or promote women.

    Posted by: Ed | May 10, 2012 9:03:28 PM

  15. This is the same reason "ladies' night" is banned in MA. A reverse-discrimination suit saying it was illegal to sell discounted drinks to women and not men.

    Posted by: Sam | May 11, 2012 12:05:03 AM

  16. A company can do this in cities without the Fairness Ordinance, and it should happen more often. I say, what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

    Posted by: Sam Molloy | May 13, 2012 12:05:08 AM

Post a comment


« «Bristol Palin Blasts Obama For Listening To His Pro-Gay Gals« «